"I am by birth a free Commoner of England, and am thereby intailed or intituled unto an equall priviledge with your selfe, or the greatest men in England, unto the freedome and liberty of the Lawes of England."
William Thompson, 14. of December, 1647

Friday, 29 October 2010

History, contrary to what the politically-correct culture wallahs would have us believe, is not about celebrating 'positive role models', for these are few and far between, and the biggest contributors to history are generally the biggest, most murderous bastards, and Black History Month would be a whole lot more interesting if it focused on Idi Amin, Mobuto and the like.

Thursday, 28 October 2010

No one this side of reality is at all surprised at Cameron's pitiful performance as Barroso's poodle (he yaps, he snarls, he rolls over). I can't summon any deep emotion. But, it seems there are still some deluded tories left to be disappointed. All I can suggest is one of those guys who rescues people from crazy cults at the behest of their families.

Sure, it is true that the handful of decent tory MPs are at least able to raise the issues that must be raised, but they should accept that they will not change the direction of the government, and only serve to hold back the necessary changes.

If a new treaty goes through without a referendum, their only honorable course of action is tearing up their membership card and joining the campaign for freedom.

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

Monday, 25 October 2010

I can only read Robert Fisk's summary of the Wikileaks release of documents with sorrow, horror and shame. I am convinced that the leaders of the last government, Blair and his coterie, must be brought to justice for their part in that damnable war. It is time we held to account these criminals who so abused their positions of authority in bringing about this wholly unnecessary war.

Sunday, 24 October 2010

I have begun to regret my post below featuring the head of Deborah Arnott, realising that I'm going to have to increase my lazy blogging to force it down and off the page, or else have to look at it. Let's face it, she's no oil painting. This, however is - Titian's Venus - so apologies for the post below, I hope this will serve as an antidote.

Gingrich's support of the libertarian revolution is, so far, only lip service. His concrete proposals would likely expand the welfare state's burden on the taxpayers, for example, by forcing states to create and operate a vast array of government orphanages and group homes. Instead of being rearranged, spending should be slashed and the money returned to its original owners.

The Gingrichians had petty reservations about the Clinton crime bill, but they enthusiastically supported the dangerous nationalization of crime-fighting functions, which, according to both libertarian precepts and the Constitution, are supposed to dwell exclusively in the states and local communities. And we should never forget that Gingrich advocated a compromise with the president on health care.

The infiltration and neutralisation of the Tea Party is well noted. Nevertheless, there is a measure of hope that the forthcoming elections will do some good and throw at least some of the bums out.

Not since the end of the first world war have we seen such a complete reversal of women's opportunities and economic independence. We haven't seen an attempt to turn the clock back like this for very many generations.

The question is: independent from who or what? The answer is simple; from a husband, who was traditionally tasked with providing the means to support and sustain the wife, whilst she was engaged in the rather time- and energy-consuming business of bringing up a child or children.

So, how were women liberated from this dependence? By the Big Daddy State, set in motion by the would-be social engineers. This is not independence, but only another form of dependence, and one without the many mitigating advantages that the family provides.

Displacement activity: I took up smoking when I gave up fucking with other people's lives

Following on from my last post, I have discovered a new, enjoyable pastime: crudely manipulating photos of anti-smoker control-freaks. Here's Deborah Arnott, director of ASH, whose image - for no fee - I have enhanced. With the new look, she is immediately more approachable.

So if you see her, remember to ask: "'scuse me love, have you got a light?"

Ah! That's better. "Since I took up smoking, I'm more relaxed and less of a cocksucking control-freak."

My fellow blogger Dick Puddlecote draws my attention to the latest from the big pharma shills, AKA the anti-smoker control-freaks, who are currently having kittens lest their tax-payer-funded pork barrel be reduced in the present austerity. On such occasions, you must expect the control-freaks to become even more shrill. I don't know that they have much to fear from the newbies in government, who are all pressed out from the same mould as the last bunch.

Anyway, key to the anti-smoker campaign has been the agenda to de-normalise the pastime, to ensure that no reference is made to smoking without an attached denunciation, and that old photos, cartoons and movies should be photo-shopped, edited or banned, to prevent the sight of a cigarette, cigar or pipe legitimising use of the nicotiana tabacum plant. Well, two can play at that game. Here's Peter Kellner, Fabian agent embedded in the establishment, married to EU apparatchik and traitor to her nation Baroness Ashton. Ooh, Peter, don't drop ash on your tax-payer-funded suit!

Tuesday, 12 October 2010

You know your government's gone totally criminal when Oath Keepers, a group made up primarily of veterans from the military and police, and pledged to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution, is being targeted as dangerous extremists. That in itself is revealing enough, but it gets worse...

... and a quote from Hunter S. Thompson from 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas':

"Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuck-offs and misfits — a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage."

Sunday, 10 October 2010

Is that a Spitting Image puppet? No, it's Andrew Marr, just another journalist having a go at the bloggers, for being rude and nasty and angry, and helping to push down the rotten door of the MSM. Fuck off Marr, and go do your job: brown-nosing politicians - you might get a scoop. Maybe Ned wants to share his vision, or the new shadow chancellor needs your advice on what tie to wear, or a good restaurant in Cambridge.

Following on from the last post, and via Not Evil, Just Wrong (a name which is too charitable, I'd say), I note this delightful poster from the Enviro-mentalists. It seems to be a bit of a leitmotif amongst the Gaia crowd, killing kids. I guess there are two aspects to it: firstly to provoke alarm in the general public, who see such an image as above and at a deep level want to do something to save the kid, and secondly killing children seems to appeal to the sicko enviro-nuts, for whom the death of a child represents a reduction in carbon use.

It's the age of stoopid alright, when people take lectures from the 10:10 crowd, flying around the world, preaching that people should stop ... err ... flying. Oh, wait a sec, it's common people who shouldn't fly, it's okay if you're important movie people like Franny, Tristram, Ukelalie and the Notting Hill crowd. Poor old Phelim gets booted out of the press area, but maybe he should count himself lucky they didn't scatter his blood and body parts to the four winds as a sacrifice to Mother Earth.

Come on, all you EU federasts, come and defend the treatment of photographer Marianne Maekelbergh at the hands of Brussels police:

She was taken into police custody where she was violently dragged by her hair, chained to a radiator, hit, kicked, spat upon, called a whore, and threatened with sexual assault by the police. She also witnessed the torture of another prisoner also chained to a radiator.

This did not take place not in a dark corner of the police station but out in the open, directly witnessed by police station authorities, who gave the impression that this was standard practice. Police removed her ID card, USB stick, the camera with the photos on it, as well as 25 euros in cash – to date they have refused to return her property.

Tell me why I should welcome these uniformed thugs being given the power to come into my country, or why I should welcome the transfer of sovereignty from London to the institutions of Brussels.

Maybe it's just a cry for help, but if the government wasn't so craven about such matters, it would put the quango out of its misery. Apparently the nation's still terribly unequal, after all the reams of regulations and laws implemented by the social engineers in the name of 'fairness' (that fucking word again). Hmm, it's kind of like YOU FAILED by your own measures.

Of course, it's not really very certain what these good-intentioned hell-bound road-pavers expected to happen. Were all the stats supposed to come up equal? Split everybody up into a thousand different categories, and compare each category on a thousand different criteria, and, if society is 'fair' (that fucking word again) they'll all come up equal, and the exact same proportion of wheelchair-bound Chinese homosexuals will be found amongst High Court judges as are convicted for serious crimes, as are stopped and searched by the police, as are CEOs of City financial institutions. That would be one frozen-over-hell of a coincidence, and I guess until Satan is skating across the lake of sulphur, we better keep all you equality pimps on the payroll, right?

Lord Mandelson, speaking on Saturday night at the Cheltenham Literary Festival, warned the new party leader of the dangers of ditching the New Labour brand.

I agree, keep the brand, Ned. The association with war crimes, corruption, police state authoritarianism and mind-blowing economic incompetence is definitely worth preserving and certainly in the country's interest.

Saturday, 9 October 2010

Tomorrow is, of course, the 10th of the 10th, a day to draw attention to the scourge of that naughty gas CO2. Here we see one of 10:10's supporters explaining why it's important to get behind the campaign.

The case of Katharine Birbalsingh, deputy head at St Michael and All Angels C of E Academy, suspended from her position for daring to speak at the Tory Party conference (by a Blair-worshipping arbeiter-parteier), heralds the start of an insurrectional struggle by the government against the marxoid establishment of the state school system, and the government should be aware that last time under Thatcher, it lost (see 'All must have prizes' by Melanie Philips). Whether the new government has the inclination to push for victory, or any true-believing fervour is another matter.

Ms Birbalsingh effuses the kind of common sense compassion that is not taught in any teacher training college, but rather comes from qualities within certain people, most of whom cannot function long in the school system, aware that they are forever suspect in the eyes of their lesser-gifted colleagues. On a personal level (a human level), such 'renegades' can make a huge difference to those children who come into contact with them, inspiring them, confronting them with reality - a rare moment of clarity in the narcotic suspended animation of the state education institution.

Can such people mitigate the psychopathology of the state school system, the billious mix of pavlovian psychology, jaded Rousseau-inspired noble-savagism, Fabian scientific control-freakery, atavistic atomisation, bound together with the glue of marxoid group-think?

Ms Birbalsingh would like to think so. I fear not. The establishment cannot be won over, it must be destroyed, the empire it controls smashed into ten thousand pieces. The psychopathic system cannot be humanised, it must be decommissioned, and human beings put back in its place.

My favorite story about the Georgists is one I employed at a memorial service for a dear anarchist friend who had had a great deal of respect for the Georgists. A funeral service is being held for a man. The minister conducting the service invites mourners who choose to do so to say some departing words about the deceased. Some 15 to 20 members of the congregation arise and make their comments. The minister finally asks: “is there anyone else who would like to say anything about the deceased?” After a moderate period of silence, a Georgist arises at the back of the church and says: “if no one wishes to say anything more about the deceased, I’d like to say a few words about the ‘single tax.’”

Friday, 8 October 2010

I try to avoid the comforting rage provided by so many Daily Mail stories, featuring (and I know not why these people choose to expose themselves to the public ire) the latest feckless woman and her brood of bastard children she believes are 'entitled' to all the good things in life at the expense of others, but it's not easy.

It is clear that if you reward people for irresponsible behaviour, that is what you will get, and having five children by four different men is the height of irresponsibility. To what extent the policies that have led our society to this place were intentionally aimed at undermining the family is a matter for debate. It is certainly the case that the Fabian intellectuals of the 'progressive era' saw families as the enemy. It was families that perpetuated all the human traits they held responsible for holding back progress to their promised land, and thus it was necessary to use education and social engineering to get hold of the next generation and inculcate the 'right' ideas. It is also true that this agenda has been helped along by legions of useful idiots and well-meaning philanthropists, unaware of the bigger picture.

The question is; what do we do about it? Taking it as essential to dramatically reduce the welfare state, we are left with the problem of all those hungry little bastards. It is no doubt true that their predicament is not their fault. Neither is it the fault of the average tax-payer, who has heretofore been expected to pick up the tab. At a higher level, without doubt it lies with the social engineers who purposefully and patiently undermined our society, but the fault lies immediately with the parents, primarily the mothers - the fathers also, whoever and wherever they are. The only way we can reduce this problem humanely - and I will not countenance enforced sterility, or other state-imposed limits on fertility, for this is surely worse than the present situation - is to hold people responsible for their actions, and kill the entitlement culture once and for all.

Within any such root-and-branch reform, there must be a separation of those that have paid in and those that have never done so. There may need to be a prolonged period of adjustment, so the welfare junkies can adapt to their new circumstances (welcome to the real world), but whatever happens, we cannot as a society afford to keep rewarding people for their irresponsibility, for one because it is immoral to take tax money from other people who are more responsible, and for two because our society will collapse without the family.

Sunday, 3 October 2010

S. Paul Forrest writes an excellent article showing his awakening to just how bad Obama's 'healthcare' Act is. He did what no one in the House did before they voted it into law - he actually read it.

As the media circus grew around this legislation, and accusatory fingers pointed toward both sides of the aisle, it seemed that no one had actually read the Bill. This became clear when Nancy Pelosi, the Leader of the Left, made the statement: "Congress has to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy." She was advocating the passing of this Economic Giant of a Bill without even taking the time to read it. This was my first realization that something was very wrong beneath the streets of Obama Land...

After digesting the complexities of this Bill and after some serious self-reflection and swallowing of my Liberal pride, I came to a disturbing conclusion: The Republicans were right...

The recent Bills and Executive Orders being implemented in the after-hours workings of the Obama Regime are all interconnected, purposeful moves to control the “health” of the population. Our entire food system, and thus our health choices, are being decided without public knowledge in a land called Democratic; our vote has not been counted. Unbeknownst to most Americans, H.R. 3590 specifically requires a committee to list the priorities for "lifestyle behavior modification" that the government will pursue. This translates into control of our choices of diet. Is this what Liberals were thinking of when we all together stood symbolically with Obama to bring Health Care to America? Is this what we foresaw as the solution to our collective Health Care dilemma? Control over choices?

Saturday, 2 October 2010

It would go some way to explaining his 10:10 "murder those who disagree" movie. I hear a lot of 'creative types' enjoy the old nose powder, which has, amongst others, the draw-back of making people think they're really interesting, witty, and their ideas are great, when in reality, they're borish tossers and their ideas are shit.

EU federast par excellence Nose Monkey's post slagging off France for kicking out the Roma comes over all Tony Hancock in 'Twelve Angry Men' ("Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?"). He lauds something I've been known to laud in posts gone by, the Rule of Law:

This is why the English Civil War was fought. It’s why the French Revolution started. It’s why the American Revolution happened. “The rule of law” isn’t just about words written in some dusty textbook – it’s about core, fundamental principles. It always has been. It’s about the rights of man – hence Thomas Paine’s use of that phrase as the title of his most famous work. In another, Common Sense, he likewise noted “in America, the law is King”.

This is a principle that the EU has been trying to bring to Europe, a mere two centuries late.

... Yeah. Nose Monkey, it seems, has a blind spot you could roll a panzer division through, when it comes to his particular favourite leviathan. For him, the antidote to national states doing things he doesn't agree with, is to replace it with a supranational state, even bigger, even more remote, even more corrupt. He sums up with:

Being voted into office doesn’t mean you can do what you like any more than being king means you can do what you like. We’ve progressed beyond that stage. Or, at least, I thought we had.

So close, but yet so far! I agree that demagogues are dangerous to liberty, but for him, progress is not getting rid of the demagogues and letting people be sovereign of their own lives and property, but replacing the demagogues with a commission of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, secret police and washed-up ex-demagogues, driven out of elected office by corruption scandals.

Friday, 1 October 2010

"The thing with the anti brigade, whether it is anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-obesity or any other activity the puritans take a dislike to is that if you allow them a millimetre, they’ll steal a parsec and come back to cut out your heart."

Here journalist Peter Oborne brings up the subject of what should have been a major scandal; the meeting of erstwhile Business Secretary Peter Mandelson and erstwhile Shadow Chancellor, now Chancellor George Obsorne with aluminium oligarch Deripaska on a Rothschild yacht around the time of the Bilderberg conclave in Greece.

It did kick up a little bit of dust, but the servants of the High Cabal commit their crimes in the open these days with impunity.

What can you say about 10:10's campaign video in which people who disagree with its agenda are murdered in the most graphic way? I'm lacking the hyperbole to describe this. Whatever words I can muster will not express just how monstrous these people are. I imagine that no one will drop by to my little blog to justify this outrage, but there are plenty who are prepared to do so at the Guardian. Apparently it's funny to see people who are prepared to disagree with the group-think being murdered. It's funny to see people covered in other people's blood. It's just a bit of fun to get a 'serious message' over. I agree with this last point: there is a serious message in there: if people disagree with 10:10, murder them. This film is arguably incitement to murder.

They hate humanity. They want to kill us all. We must stop them. We must turn this propaganda weapon on them.